Thank you for the interesting and provocative topic. Since my opponent did not specify that the first round was for acceptance only, nor make an argument of his own, I will make only a brief introductory statement of my position and allow him to post the first substantive argument on the merits of the proposition.

The debate challenge states, "Targeted killings are a morally permissible foreign policy tool," but it does not state what system of morality is to be applied. For this reason, I will presume we are discussing morality under contemporary American standards. Under contemporary American standards, use of force is justified to prevent eminent harm (See: http://www.justice.gov...). Targeted killings, being by definition in cold blood, is a use of lethal force without any danger of eminent harm.

That's unfortunate. While he's probably not coming back I will post a brief argument in oposition in case he does.

Killing in self defense is only valid when threatened with imminent harm. This standard has been in place for quite some time and there is no reason to replace it now. Targeted killings (as opposed to killing that occur on the battlefield) are by definition in cold blood There is therefore no eminent harm threatened. Therefore, targeted killings are not morally permissable.